Playboy model roughed up. Couple jailed over Christmas for cigarette out window. Trendy New York bars.
-
But apparently we’re supposed to be happy because “She could have been tased”. They actually said that.
-
Obstruction of justice? For not potentially testifying against yourself? That’s a fifth amendment right. You are not required to cooperate. You have the fucking right to remain silent. Not just after being arrested. Give me a fucking break.
-
…where the police will willingly arrest you for not paying for $700 of drinks you never drank. Avoid “Arena” in Times Square like the plague.
I love consuming.
I love being in public!!
I love the police!
I love New York!Douchebags.
Claire's blog 
December 31, 2007 at 9:09 PM
This is like a logic problem :-)
There were 4 people in the car:
Patricia Moore
Her husband, Alvin
Her daughter, who apparently was driving since proof-of-insurance was an issue
Her son-in-law James Dunsmore, who flicked the butt
James and Alvin were jailed. The only thing I can think is that somehow they were abusive enough to make the cop think they were drunk, or something. But then, as long as they stay in the car and aren’t driving, isn’t that still not illegal?
If the daughter was not jailed, does this mean that the cop did not have the right to order her out of the car in the first place?
Sounds like the cop wanted to get in out of the cold and write up some paperwork, maybe.
January 1, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Nope, not trying to imply anything about the cop’s logic. The cop was a butthead. Just saying that figuring out the exact circumstances by using the article was like a word problem, a logic problem. Nothing to do with the content of the argument.
Sounds like the bottom line is, since they were detained, they have the right not to answer questions. And if they weren’t detained, they’d have the right to simply leave.
And merely not answering a question shouldn’t be enough for an arrest. And after all this, it’s just fucking littering facrissakes! Cop must’ve been a butthead.
January 3, 2008 at 12:23 AM
I’m compelled to point out, if you’re riding in a car with 3 other people and 2 or 3 of them are smoking, then when a cop pulls you over a mile down the road, it is not necessarily obvious who chucked the butt out the window.
If I’m riding in the car with 3 other family members and a cop asks us who threw out the cigarette, why in the world would I try and help him figure that out?
Just like a seatbelt violation, he should write a ticket to the driver and we go on our way. I cannot really imagine a circumstance — other than the prevoiusly-mentioned violation of the law by being drunk in public — that would justify 2 of the 4 people in the car being arrested and taken to jail.
Cops often (but not always) use your ignorance of the law against you because (again, generally speaking) they are much more concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit of the law.
Part of the reason is that it is easier to *argue and prove* that they followed the letter of the law, and much harder to prove that they were enforcing the spirit. The path of least resistance, therefore, is to pay attention to the letters and not the spirit.
I’m not trying to draw fire or speak for anyone else, but it seemed to me that Clint was saying the occupants of the car had a right not to speak, and I believe he was correct. If he’s not, he should be: if I’m under arrest, get me a lawyer before questioning. Otherwise, I’m leaving.
Wherever that’s written, I don’t care. It is morally correct and I would prefer that our laws protect and maintain it.